tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post4715250517007994220..comments2023-11-03T06:35:48.003-05:00Comments on Shark and Shepherd: Oh the humanity! A citizen speaks.Rick Esenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-23907933392719485832014-09-23T22:55:14.808-05:002014-09-23T22:55:14.808-05:00No Rick, you can't say that "the 1999 ca...No Rick, you can't say that "the 1999 case was always wrong." I know that you feel that way, but your feelings do not make the case not the law. It is the law. As for WRTL II, you may want to relisten to Judge Easterbrook's brief retort to WCFG's attempt to argue that case too. The panel would not even indulge such a baseless argument, and rightfully so. Barland II, arguably, is closer, but coordination was not the issue there either. At any rate, your left with a case that didn't even exist at the time of the Walker investigation. I fail to see logic in blaming prosecutors. It's the legislature you should be pointing fingers at. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-27120879056529875992014-09-23T17:24:15.949-05:002014-09-23T17:24:15.949-05:00"I don't recall a Republican DA doing any..."I don't recall a Republican DA doing anything like this, but I can say that I said that the prosecution of Democrats in the caucus scandal was ill-advised."<br /><br />Professor, with all due respect, you contradicted yourself. You do recall an R-DA engaging in conduct--you listed an example.<br /><br /><br />"There is simply no way to reconcile support for the silly censorship amendment with robust protection for speech."<br /><br />Professor, it was a RESOLUTION, not a "censorship amendment". Shorewood did not “vote” to “repeal” anything nor take anything away; its purpose was to state that the Founding Fathers made it explicitly clear that ONLY natural persons are deserving of political rights.<br /><br />As you know, or should know, corporations, non-profits, unions, PACs, etc. are LEGAL FICTIONS, created by charters granted by the government. “Personhood” are the liberties ORIGINALLY reserved exclusively for human beings, in this case American citizens.JMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-37625552993533897992014-09-23T08:06:31.458-05:002014-09-23T08:06:31.458-05:00JM
I don't recall a Republican DA doing anyth...JM<br /><br />I don't recall a Republican DA doing anything like this, but I can say that I said that the prosecution of Democrats in the caucus scandal was ill-advised. I would not want a Republican DA to do anything like this. <br /><br />And Shorewood does hate free speech. There is simply no way to reconcile support for the silly censorship amendment with robust protection for speech.Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-23193647014007756042014-09-23T08:03:11.717-05:002014-09-23T08:03:11.717-05:00Anon 11:40 We filed an amicus brief in O'Keefe...Anon 11:40 We filed an amicus brief in O'Keefe on behalf of a former FEC chair and two advocacy groups in which we address the issue you raise. I can answer your question in one sentence. The 1999 case was always wrong, but WRTL II and Barland II make that absolutely clear.<br /><br />If you want to claim the authority of "most of us" who practice here, have the courage to identify your self. As for me being a hack, WILL has obtained a result in 18 cases that have been filed or in which we've provided amicus support in the three years of our existence. With victory defined as getting what our client asked for (not a compromise), we are 16-2 with one of the two losses on appeal. Do you do you as well?Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-39240486868284894282014-09-19T23:40:17.701-05:002014-09-19T23:40:17.701-05:00Rick - When did you give up being a lawyer and bec...Rick - When did you give up being a lawyer and become such a partisan hack? The rapidity that has consumed conservatives lately in Wisconsin is embarrassing. I am a conservative lawyer, and wish that a conservative and legal mind -- like yours used to be -- would evaluate the John Doe comprehsively, for both its fairness and faults. I don't include Judge Randa in that, as most of us who pratice around here (as well as 7th cir. judges) view almost every opinion of his with extreme skepticism. <br /><br />Your recent Wall Street Journal editorial is a hack piece. Leave the mindless rhetoric to the Rivkins (see WCFG 7th cir. brief with touches of "I blame Obama" and cold war/red scare references) and von spakovskys who don't even live in this community which they now seek to infuriate from afar. We are better than that. If the John doe prosecutors were so wrong on the law, why don't you answer the seventh circuit panel's question which Rivkin's camp completely bombed at: What is the case that holds that it is perfectly legal for a campaign to coordinate with a nominally independent "issue advocacy" organization? Please include in your answer what case overruled the 1999 Wisconsin court of appeals case that indeed held it was illegal. If you can't do that in two sentence or less, then stop blogging about it and villianizing those who enforce the laws.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-41578646092081599822014-09-19T03:49:43.394-05:002014-09-19T03:49:43.394-05:00Shorewood does hate free speech. Shorewood does hate free speech. John Mitchellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-12482152136995827372014-09-16T17:34:24.186-05:002014-09-16T17:34:24.186-05:00“Give me the chance to go through tens of thousand...“Give me the chance to go through tens of thousands of documents related to the political activities of Democrats, unions and liberal advocacy groups and I suspect there'll be a few interesting stories to tell, even if there is no more evidence of illegal activity than the Doe prosecutors have found.”<br /><br />Professor, you were doing really well up until this point. As you know, prosecutors have this discretion. Even if the DA skews left or right, they can always fall back on that point, even if people suspect that they could be political witch hunting taking place. It is called plausible denial. I do not recall your level of outrage when DA’s who lean or are hardcore Republicans take a similar approach.<br /><br /><br />“If you hold the silly view that reminding people that state law does, in fact, make it a crime to vote illegally is some awful act, knock yourself out.”<br /><br />How about the silly view that Shorewood hates free speech? Does that work, too?JMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-71793096236005285422014-09-16T07:50:43.408-05:002014-09-16T07:50:43.408-05:00You mean that it is NOT a criminal act to opine th...You mean that it is NOT a criminal act to opine that the Democrat Party is a criminal conspiracy?Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.com